Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T07:42:55.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Weed control and rice response from clomazone applied at different timings in a water-seeded system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2022

Aaron Becerra-Alvarez
Affiliation:
Graduate Student Researcher, Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA
Alex R Ceseski
Affiliation:
Assistant Project Scientist, Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA
Kassim Al-Khatib*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Kassim Al-Khatib, Department of Plant Sciences, MS4, University of California, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA95616. Email: kalkhatib@ucdavis.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Clomazone is a widely used herbicide in California water-seeded rice for control of bearded sprangletop and watergrass. Generally, clomazone is applied to a flooded rice field at day of rice seeding. However, interest exists among growers to delay the clomazone application. Weather variability may encourage growers to practice Leathers’ method. Leathers’ method is the practice of draining the field 1 to 2 d after air seeding to encourage better and more uniform seedling establishment, then reflooding back to a 10- to 15-cm flood 4 to 7 d later. Therefore the objective of this study was to evaluate grass weed control and rice response at four rates of clomazone, applied at two timings: at day of seeding (DOS) in a continuous 10-cm flood and after Leathers’ method. This study was conducted in 2019 and 2020 at the Rice Experiment Station in Biggs, CA. In 2019, there were no difference across clomazone rates on control of bearded sprangletop independent of application timing used; however, in 2020, bearded sprangletop control with clomazone applied after Leathers’ method was 70% to 71% across clomazone rate by 60 d after treatment (DAT), compared to 92% to 97% in the DOS applications. Watergrass control was 100% in 2019 across clomazone rate and application timing. However, in 2020, watergrass control was greater at the DOS application at 54% to 71%. Clomazone applied at the 0.7 kg ha−1 Leathers’ method resulted in 84% bleaching by 14 DAT and was similar across all Leathers’ method clomazone applications and the 0.7 kg ha−1 DOS application. There was no rice grain yield difference among all clomazone-treated plots, with the exception of the 0.7 kg ha−1 Leathers’ method interaction with the DOS applications.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America

Introduction

The majority of California’s rice production is in the Sacramento Valley on approximately 200,000 ha. Medium-grain varieties make up more than 90% of the cultivated rice hectares (Cal Rice 2020). The rice crop reached a value of nearly US$900 million in 2019, making it a major agricultural commodity in California (CDFA 2020). Growers in California primarily plant rice in a water-seeded system, where rice is pre-germinated and air-seeded onto fields with a 10- to 15-cm standing flood. The water-seeded production system was first introduced for weed suppression and established an efficient agronomic method that led to overall high rice productivity with environmentally benign approaches in preserving water quality and wildlife habitat (Hill et al. Reference Hill, Williams, Mutters and Greer2006).

Bearded sprangletop is a semiaquatic annual grass commonly found in seasonal wetland areas (Altop et al. Reference Altop, Mennan, Phillippo and Zandstra2015). Both water-seeded and dry-seeded rice fields are excellent environments for this grass species (Driver et al. Reference Driver, Al-Khatib and Godar2020a; Smith Reference Smith1983). Bearded sprangletop, barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.], early watergrass [Echinochloa oryzoides (Ard.) Fristch], and late watergrass [Echinochloa phyllopogon (Stapf) Koso-Pol.] are weedy grasses of the California rice agroecosystem that have adapted well to the permanently flooded cropping conditions, making these grasses particularly problematic weeds. When compared to broadleaves and sedges, weedy grasses are the major predictors of yield loss in California rice fields (Brim-DeForest et al. Reference Brim-DeForest, Al-Khatib and Fischer2017). Bearded sprangletop and watergrasses have shown to reduce rice yields up to 59% in unmanaged fields (Smith Reference Smith1983; Gibson et al. Reference Gibson, Fischer, Foin and Hill2002).

Herbicides continue to be a major tool for weed management in rice (Gibson et al. Reference Gibson, Fischer, Foin and Hill2002; Hill et al. Reference Hill, Williams, Mutters and Greer2006). Unfortunately, the majority of herbicides that control watergrass are not effective on bearded sprangletop (Osca Reference Osca2013). Currently California water-seeded rice growers have only four herbicides labeled for bearded sprangletop control, which include clomazone, thiobencarb, benzobicyclon, and cyhalofop-butyl, of which only cyhalofop-butyl is a postemergence herbicide (Driver et al. Reference Driver, Al-Khatib and Godar2020b). A survey conducted by the University of California has recorded resistance to thiobencarb and cyhalofop-butyl in several bearded sprangletop populations (UC Rice 2016). Driver et al. (Reference Driver, Al-Khatib and Godar2020b) reported that bearded sprangletop resistance to clomazone in California rice fields is minimal, indicating the potential for continued use of clomazone to control bearded sprangletop. The authors suggested that growers’ complaints about lack of bearded sprangletop control with clomazone may be attributed to bearded sprangletop escaping the clomazone application due to later weed emergence or mistimed application, demonstrating a need to study the effects of clomazone application timings in the water-seeded system.

Clomazone has been an important herbicide for control of bearded sprangletop and watergrass in California rice (Driver et al. Reference Driver, Al-Khatib and Godar2020b). A microencapsulated granule of clomazone is specifically formulated for flooded California rice culture; the herbicide label specifies a day of seeding (DOS) application to a flooded rice field and a 14-d water-holding period (Anonymous 2003).

Clomazone is a pro-herbicide that metabolizes to the active herbicide 5-keto clomazone in susceptible plants, causing bleaching, a white appearance on the leaves, by inhibiting the formation of photosynthetic pigments. The 5-keto clomazone disrupts the enzyme 1-deoxy-D-xylulose-5-phosphate synthase at the first step of isoprenoid synthesis in the greater carotenoid synthesis pathway (Ferhatoglu and Barrett Reference Ferhatoglu and Barrett2006). Carotenoids play a role in protecting the chlorophyll from photooxidation; when inhibited, degradation of chlorophyll and membranes occurs from singlet oxygen and triplet chlorophyll, leading to eventual plant death (Hess Reference Hess2000). Clomazone can also cause bleaching on rice but does not result in reduced grain yields when used according to the manufacturer’s label (Jordan et al. Reference Jordan, Bollich, Burns and Walker1998; Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Webster and Blouin2005).

Several California rice growers practice an early drain for increased stand establishment in the water-seeded system, called Leathers’ method (Williams et al. Reference Williams, Roberts, Hill, Scardaci and Tibbits1990; Brim-DeForest et al. Reference Brim-DeForest, Al-Khatib and Fischer2017). Leathers’ method is the practice of completely draining the field 1 to 2 d after air seeding, then reflooding back to 10 to 15 cm after 4 to 7 d (Williams et al. Reference Williams, Roberts, Hill, Scardaci and Tibbits1990). This method can be helpful when there is poor seedling establishment due to weather, windborne seedling drift, or predation. Rice root development is encouraged with Leathers’ method by providing an aerobic environment for the rice seedlings, but the method also encourages greater weed pressure because weed seeds can germinate more easily in that environment. If practicing Leathers’ method, a clomazone application is made after the drain to allow for the proper water-holding period. However, research to examine the activity of clomazone application timing in water-seeded rice is lacking. Therefore the objective of this research was to study the grass weed and rice response to clomazone applied at DOS and after Leathers’ method.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in the 2019 and 2020 growing seasons at the Rice Experiment Station in Biggs, CA (39.46°N, 121.74°W). Soils at the study site are characterized as Esquon-Neerdobe (fine, smectitic, thermic Xeric Epiaquerts and Duraquerts), silty clay with a pH of 5.1 and 2.8% organic matter. In both years, a pass with a single offset stubble disk was done after the previous year’s harvest, then the field was flooded to 10 cm during the winter months and drained in early spring. Field preparation in spring consisted of one pass with a chisel plow and two passes with a single-offset disk, followed by a land plane to smooth the soil surface. Then a corrugated roller was used to pack the soil and eliminate large clods on the soil surface. Seeds of rice cultivar ‘M-206’ were pre-germinated by placing the seeds in steel bins and filling with water until all seeds were covered. A 5% sodium hypochlorite solution was added to the water for the first hour for disease control, then the water was drained and bins refilled with only water for the remaining 24 h. The seed was then drained until dry for up to 5 h and seeded by aircraft at a rate of 135 kg ha−1 onto the field with 10-cm standing water. Standard agronomic and pest management practices were followed based on the University of California rice production guidelines (UCANR 2018). Seeding dates were June 13, 2019, and May 28, 2020, respectively.

The experimental design was a split-plot design, where application timing was the main plot and the herbicide rates were the subplots. The field was split by a 6-m-wide levee into two sections, to control water management in the main plots; on one side, the flood was continuously present, and on the other side, Leathers’ method was implemented. On each side, there were four replications of the herbicide rates set as randomized complete blocks. Each plot was surrounded by 2.2-m-wide levees to prevent contamination from adjacent treatments; plot sizes were 3 m wide × 6 m long.

Clomazone (CERANO® 5 MEG, Wilbur-Ellis Co. LLC, Fresno, CA, USA) was broadcast by hand at 0, 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 kg ai ha−1 at two application timings. The clomazone timings for the main plots were day of seeding (DOS) in continuous flood plots and 7 d after seeding (DAS) in Leathers’ method plots. In Leathers’ method, the water was lowered to the soil level 2 DAS, and plots were reflooded to 10 cm after 5 d. Additional herbicides were applied later in the season for broadleaf and sedge weed control in treated plots, which included smallflower umbrella sedge (Cyperus difformis L.), ricefield bulrush [Schoenoplectus mucronatus (L.) Palla], ducksalad [Heteranthera limosa (Sw.) Willd.], and redstem (Ammannia spp.). The treatments included penoxsulam (Granite® GR, Corteva Agriscience, Wilmington, DE, USA) applied at 35 g ai ha−1 at 23 DAS and 25 DAS in 2019 and 2020, respectively, followed by an herbicide mixture of propanil (SUPERWHAM!® CA, RiceCo LLC, Memphis, TN, USA) applied at 4,500 g ai ha−1 and triclopyr (Grandstand® CA, Corteva Agriscience) applied at 420 g ai ha−1 at 38 DAS and 30 DAS in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

Visual ratings for bearded sprangletop and watergrass species control were conducted at 14, 28, 40, and 60 d after treatment (DAT) and were based on a percentage scale, ranging from 0 (no control) to 100 (full control or no weeds observed in the plot). Watergrass species were grouped together for ease of identification; however, barnyardgrass, early watergrass, and late watergrass were commonly found in the study field. Visual rice injury ratings were conducted 14 and 60 DAT for bleaching injury on a scale ranging from 0 (no injury) to 100 (plant death). Plant height was recorded at 110 DAT by measuring from the soil to the extended panicle. In 2019, grain yield was harvested with a specialized small-plot combine (SPC40, Almaco, Nevada, IA, USA), and in 2020, grain yield was hand-harvested from two 1 m2 quadrats in each plot and mechanically threshed (Large Vogel Plot Thresher, Almaco). Rice grain yield for both years was adjusted to 14% moisture.

Data were analyzed with analysis of variance, and means were separated using Tukey’s honestly significant difference at a significance level of α = 0.05 using R (R Development Core Team 2021). The lme4 (Bate et al. Reference Bate, Maechler, Bolker and Walker2015) and lmerTest (Kuznetsova et al. Reference Kuznetsova, Brockhoff and Christenson2017) packages were used to fit the linear models. The emmeans package (Lenth Reference Lenth2020) was used to estimate marginal means along with the multcomp package to generate multiple comparisons among means (Hothorn et al. Reference Hothorn, Bretz and Westfall2008). Treatment × year interactions were observed for the weed control data; therefore these data were analyzed and presented individually by year. Weed control data were analyzed with the herbicide rates, application timings, and evaluations as fixed factors and replication as a random factor. There was no significant treatment × year interaction for rice injury and yield data; therefore the two years’ data were combined. The herbicide rates and application timing were considered fixed factors, while year and replication were considered random factors.

Results and Discussion

Weed Control

Weed community composition varied each year; in 2019, a lower watergrass pressure was present than in 2020. In 2019, the nontreated control plots had a relatively low abundance of watergrass cover averaging 10%, while the sedges and broadleaves had on average 70% relative cover by 28 DAT. In 2020, the nontreated control plots had a much greater relative abundance of watergrass cover, averaging as 76%, while the sedges and broadleaves had on average 30% by 28 DAT (data not shown). These differences are not surprising: Brim-DeForest et al. (Reference Brim-DeForest, Al-Khatib and Fischer2017) observed similar seasonal variation in weed population composition. The authors recorded a higher proportion of broadleaves in 2013 and a higher proportion of watergrass in 2014 in the same California rice field. Similarly, Lundy et al. (Reference Lundy, Hill, Van Kessel, Owen, Pedroso, Boddy, Fischer and Linquist2014) observed annual variations in weed composition due to differences in temperature and soil moisture at the start of the growing season.

In 2019, there was no differences across the clomazone rate and application timing for bearded sprangletop control. Control was 100% by 60 DAT across all treated levels and application timings; however, in 2020, interaction was observed across application timings (Table 1). The applications after Leathers’ method decreased bearded sprangletop control to 70% across all clomazone treatments by 60 DAT in 2020, compared to 92% to 97% at the DOS applications that year (Table 1). Osca (Reference Osca2013) found that a shallow flood depth early in the season favors a greater bearded sprangletop emergence, which is consistent with the findings from this study in 2020. Leathers’ method may have encouraged more rapid bearded sprangletop growth by the time of the application, leading to decreased control. Altop et al. (Reference Altop, Mennan, Phillippo and Zandstra2015) reported that bearded sprangletop emergence was greater in continuous flood conditions. Altop et al. concluded that various Turkish populations of bearded sprangletop had adapted to flooded conditions due to reduced dormancy and greater rates of germination. Similarly, Driver et al. (Reference Driver, Al-Khatib and Godar2020a) found that California bearded sprangletop biotypes resistant to clomazone may have a fitness advantage, as they were able to emerge successfully from 20-cm flood depth, unlike susceptible biotypes, which were suppressed at a 5-cm flood depth. Driver et al. suggest that to achieve greater overall suppression of bearded sprangletop, a 7- to 13-cm continuous flood is recommended. The results of this study are inconclusive in suggesting which application timing provides greater bearded sprangletop control due to differences each year, but it provides evidence to suggest that emergence time and quantity can fluctuate from year to year. The lower control levels observed in 2020 may be due to the greater observed pressure of bearded sprangletop, as well as its ability to emerge later than other grasses (Driver et al. Reference Driver, Al-Khatib and Mesgaran2019). Clomazone rate appears to have no effect in control of bearded sprangletop (Table 1). Similarly, Driver et al. (Reference Driver, Al-Khatib and Godar2020b) found that susceptible bearded sprangletop biotypes were fully controlled at clomazone rates as low as 0.2 kg ha−1.

Table 1. Weed control from clomazone applied at day of seeding and after Leathers’ method in water-seeded rice in 2019 and 2020. a,b,c

a Abbreviation: DAT, days after treatment.

b Floodwater was lowered to the soil level 2 d after seeding and reflooded to 10 cm 5 d later, followed by the clomazone applications.

c Means accompanied by the same letter in each column do not significantly differ with Tukey’s at α = 0.05.

In 2019, there was interaction across clomazone rate and application timing for watergrass control at 14 DAT only; by 40 DAT, watergrass species were not observed in the majority of all treated plots (Table 1). With lower grass pressure in 2019, the watergrass present may have been outcompeted by the rice plants, resulting in much greater control with the combination of the clomazone treatment and crop cover (Gibson et al. Reference Gibson, Fischer, Foin and Hill2002). Caton et al. (Reference Caton, Foin, Gibson and Hill1998) used a model that demonstrated that later planting dates can lead to greater rice stand densities and assist with weed suppression. In the present study, rice was seeded 17 d later in 2019 when compared with 2020.

In 2020, an interaction occurred for watergrass control across application timing, but no interaction across clomazone rate was observed (Table 1). Zhang et al. (Reference Zhang, Webster and Blouin2005) observed increases in controlling barnyardgrass with increased clomazone rates from 0.2 to 1.1 kg ha−1 in a drill-seeded system; however, Webster et al. (Reference Webster, Baldwin and Dillon1999) observed that barnyardgrass control was not dependent on the clomazone rate or application timing in a drill-seeded flooded culture. The Leathers’ method applications resulted in 21% to 24% watergrass control, compared to 54% to 71% at the DOS applications (Table 1). Williams et al. (Reference Williams, Roberts, Hill, Scardaci and Tibbits1990) and Brim-DeForest et al. (Reference Brim-DeForest, Al-Khatib and Fischer2017) recorded a higher watergrass composition later in the season in fields where Leathers’ method was implemented, suggesting reduced watergrass control when Leathers’ method is applied.

Rice Response

Rice injury was evident with all clomazone treatments by 14 DAT. There was interaction across clomazone rate and application timing. The high rate of 0.7 kg ha−1 demonstrated greater bleaching when compared to the low rate of 0.5 kg ha−1 at the DOS application, but this was not observed with the Leathers’ method application. The 0.5 kg ha−1 rate at the Leathers’ method application was no different than the 0.7 kg ha−1 rate at the DOS application (Table 2). Zhang et al. (Reference Zhang, Webster and Blouin2005) and Bollich et al. (Reference Bollich, Jordan, Walker and Burns2000) also reported significant rice bleaching at higher clomazone rates. Zhang et al. (Reference Zhang, Webster and Blouin2005) reported that clomazone applied as a delayed preemergence treatment at 4 d after a surface irrigation caused greater rice injury than with clomazone applied as a preemergence in drill-seeded rice. Jordan et al. (Reference Jordan, Bollich, Burns and Walker1998) also observed more rice injury from clomazone applied in a drill-seeded system than in a water-seeded system. The authors attributed this response to a higher absorption of clomazone by the drill-seeded rice when water was introduced 24 h after clomazone application to promote rice germination, whereas in the water-seeded system, the rice had reduced absorption of clomazone due to the continuous flood. In agreement, Bollich et al. (Reference Bollich, Jordan, Walker and Burns2000) observed greater bleaching in drill-seeded rice than in water-seeded rice and suggested that it was due to a greater concentration of clomazone in the water, which caused the rice to germinate in the drill-seeded system. In this study, rice plants may have imbibed greater concentrations of herbicide because of the lower flood levels in Leathers’ method, leading to greater injury.

Table 2. Rice injury as affected by clomazone applied at four rates at day of seeding and after Leathers’ method in water-seeded rice in 2019 and 2020. a,b,c,d

a Abbreviation: DAT, days after treatment.

b Floodwater was lowered to the soil level 2 d after seeding and reflooded to 10 cm 5 d later, followed by the clomazone applications.

c Means accompanied by the same letter in each column do not significantly differ with Tukey’s at α = 0.05.

d Data are averaged over both study years.

By 40 DAT, no bleaching was observed in any plots. Zhang et al. (Reference Zhang, Webster and Blouin2005) reported similar decline in bleaching symptoms. In addition, Webster et al. (Reference Webster, Baldwin and Dillon1999) observed no bleaching symptoms approximately 20 d after clomazone application. Rice absorbs similar amounts of clomazone as susceptible grass species but does not readily metabolize the clomazone molecule to its active form, leading to greater ability to recover from clomazone symptoms (Tenbrook and Tjeerdema Reference Tenbrook and Tjeerdema2006). Consequently, there were no differences in rice plant heights among treatments (data not shown).

Combined-year yields demonstrated interaction across clomazone rate and application timing. Rice treated with clomazone at DOS had greater yields than the nontreated control, while rice treated with clomazone after Leathers’ method did not yield greater than the nontreated control. Still, all treated plots in this study observed no differences in yield, except from the interaction of the 0.7 kg ha−1 rate at the Leathers’ method application with the DOS applications (Table 3). An increased weed pressure can be encouraged with Leathers’ method and attributed to some of the yield reduction (Brim-DeForest et al. Reference Brim-DeForest, Al-Khatib and Fischer2017). For the most part, the results of this study coincide with the results of Jordan et al. (Reference Jordan, Bollich, Burns and Walker1998), Webster et al. (Reference Webster, Baldwin and Dillon1999), Mudge et al. (Reference Mudge, Webster, Leon and Zhang2005), and Zhang et al. (Reference Zhang, Webster and Blouin2005), which demonstrated that rice grain yield was not negatively impacted by clomazone application. Previous research has demonstrated rice varieties to have differential tolerance to clomazone. Long-grain varieties appear to be more clomazone tolerant, whereas medium-grain varieties obtain greater injury, but both varieties maintain their yield potentials (Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Webster, Blouin and Linscombe2004). However, Bollich et al. (Reference Bollich, Jordan, Walker and Burns2000) recorded a potential reduction in yield from a long-grain variety when clomazone rates were 0.8 to 2.2 kg ha−1. Short-grain varieties were shown to suffer yield reduction after a clomazone application (Mudge et al. Reference Mudge, Webster, Leon and Zhang2005). The results from this study demonstrate the potential for yield reduction in medium-grain rice with a clomazone rate of 0.7 kg ha−1, if applied after use of Leathers’ method.

Table 3. Rice grain yield as affected by clomazone applied at four rates at day of seeding and after Leathers’ method in water-seeded rice in 2019 and 2020. a,b,c

a Floodwater was lowered to the soil level 2 d after seeding and reflooded to 10 cm 5 d later, followed by the clomazone applications.

b Means accompanied by the same letter in each column do not significantly differ with Tukey’s at α = 0.05.

c Data are averaged over both study years.

In conclusion, neither clomazone application timing provided greater grass weed control. Weed community composition can differ significantly year to year, and use of Leathers’ method may encourage an increase in grass weed pressure (Brim-DeForest et al. Reference Brim-DeForest, Al-Khatib and Fischer2017). Nevertheless, Leathers’ method remains useful to some growers to encourage rice seedling establishment, but it may not be appropriate in extremely weedy fields. Rice bleaching is evident with increasing clomazone rates and was observed with greater severity after Leathers’ method yet largely did not impact rice grain yield. The 0.7 kg ha−1 rate of clomazone is still important to use to avoid greater development of clomazone-resistant weeds.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the California Rice Research Board for funding this project and the Rice Experiment Station in Biggs, CA, for the field preparation and equipment, along with the lab members and technicians who assisted with the labor of this project. No conflicts of interest have been declared.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Eric Webster, Louisiana State University AgCenter

References

Altop, EK, Mennan, H, Phillippo, CJ, Zandstra, BH (2015) Effect of the burial depth and environmental factors on the seasonal germination of bearded sprangletop (Leptochloa fusca [L.] Kunth ssp. fascicularis [Lam.] N. Snow). Weed Biol Manag 15:147158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2003) Cerano® 5MEG product label. Wilbur-Ellis Company LLC Publication Number F-102519. Fresno, CA: Wilbur-Ellis Company LLC. 5 pGoogle Scholar
Bate, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B, Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4 . J Stat Soft 67:148 Google Scholar
Bollich, PK, Jordan, DL, Walker, DM, Burns, AB (2000) Rice (Oryza sativa) response to the microencapsulated formulation of clomazone. Weed Technol 14:8993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brim-DeForest, W, Al-Khatib, A, Fischer, AJ (2017) Predicting yield losses in rice mixed-weed species infestations in California. Weed Sci 65:6171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Cal Rice] California Rice Commission (2020) California Rice Statistics and Related National and International Data. Sacramento, CA: California Rice Commission. 10 pGoogle Scholar
Caton, BP, Foin, TC, Gibson, KD, Hill, JE (1998) A temperature-based model of direct-seeded-water seeded rice (Oryza sativa) stand establishment in California. Agricul Forest Meteorol 90:91102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[CDFA] California Department of Food and Agriculture (2020) California Agricultural Statistics Review 2019–2020. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Food and Agriculture. 160 pGoogle Scholar
Driver, KE, Al-Khatib, K, Godar, A (2020a) Bearded sprangletop (Diplachne fusca ssp. fascicularis) flooding tolerance in California rice. Weed Technol 34:193196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driver, KE, Al-Khatib, K, Godar, A (2020b) Survey of bearded sprangletop (Leptochloa fusca spp. fasicularis) response to clomazone in California rice. Weed Technol 34:661665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driver, KE, Al-Khatib, K, Mesgaran, M (2019) Smallflower umbrella sedge, barnyardgrass and bearded sprangletop emergence timing in California water seeded rice. Pages 48–65 in Characterization of Clomazone Resistance and Control in Leptochloa fusca spp. fascicularis Populations from California Rice Fields. PhD dissertation, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
Ferhatoglu, Y, Barrett, M (2006) Studies of clomazone mode of action. Pestic Biochem Physio 85:714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, KD, Fischer, AJ, Foin, TC, Hill, JE (2002) Implications of delayed Echinochloa spp. germination and duration of competition for integrated weed management in water-seeded rice. Weed Res 42:351358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, FD (2000) Light dependent herbicides: an overview. Weed Sci 48:160170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, JE, Williams, JF, Mutters, RG, Greer, CA (2006) The California rice cropping system: agronomic and natural resource issues for long-term sustainability. Paddy Water Environ 4:1319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T, Bretz, F, Westfall, P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrics 50:346363 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordan, DL, Bollich, PK, Burns, AB, Walker, DM (1998) Rice (Oryza sativa) response to clomazone. Weed Sci 46:374380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A, Brockhoff, PB, Christenson, RHB (2017) lmertest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Soft 82:126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, RV (2020) emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Square Means. R Package v. 1.5.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans. Accessed: June 7, 2022Google Scholar
Lundy, ME, Hill, JE, Van Kessel, C, Owen, DA, Pedroso, RM, Boddy, LG, Fischer, AJ, Linquist, BA (2014) Site-specific, real-time temperatures improve the accuracy of weed emergence predictions in direct-seeded rice systems. Agric Syst 123:1221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudge, CR, Webster, EP, Leon, CT, Zhang, W (2005) Rice (Oryza sativa) cultivar tolerance to clomazone in water-seeded production. Weed Technol 19(4):907911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osca, JM (2013) Expansion of Leptochloa fusca ssp. uninervia and Leptochloa fusca ssp. fascicularis in rice fields in Valencia, eastern Spain. Weed Res 53:479488 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2021) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed June 7, 2022Google Scholar
Smith, RJ (1983) Competition of bearded sprangletop (Leptochloa fascicularis) with rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci 31:120123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenbrook, PL, Tjeerdema, RS (2006) Biotransformation of clomazone in rice (Oryza sativa) and early watergrass (Echinochloa oryzoides). Pestic Biochem Physio 85:3845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[UCANR] University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2018) Rice Production Workshop 2018. Davis, CA: University of California Agronomy Research and Information Center Rice. 192 pGoogle Scholar
[UC Rice] University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2016) California Rice Weed Herbicide Susceptibility Chart. Davis, CA: University of California Agronomy Research and Information Center Rice. 1 pGoogle Scholar
Webster, EP, Baldwin, FL, Dillon, TL (1999) The potential for clomazone use in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol 13:390393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, JF, Roberts, SR, Hill, JE, Scardaci, SC, Tibbits, G (1990) Managing water for weed control in rice. Calif Agric 44:710 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC (2005) Response of rice and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) to rates and timings of clomazone. Weed Technol 19:528531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC, Linscombe, SD (2004) Differential tolerance of rice (Oryza sativa) varieties to clomazone. Weed Technol 18:7376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Weed control from clomazone applied at day of seeding and after Leathers’ method in water-seeded rice in 2019 and 2020.a,b,c

Figure 1

Table 2. Rice injury as affected by clomazone applied at four rates at day of seeding and after Leathers’ method in water-seeded rice in 2019 and 2020.a,b,c,d

Figure 2

Table 3. Rice grain yield as affected by clomazone applied at four rates at day of seeding and after Leathers’ method in water-seeded rice in 2019 and 2020.a,b,c